Article Tools

A not-so-mini storm of dissent blew into the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission meeting last week as word spread about possible new permits and associated fees for people looking to rent out their property for weddings, fundraisers, and other assorted events. The fear among many of the small army of public commenters — most of whom either own a large parcel of land and occasionally rent it out to help make ends meet or work for catering companies, bartender services, or a similar event-production service — was that the proposed conditional-use permit (CUP) requirement and its associated six-digit price tag would strike a potential death blow to their livelihoods.

Interestingly enough, as it turns out, the county has actually had a CUP requirement on the books for any “for-profit special event” since 2004 but has rarely, if ever, actually had anyone apply for it. (Planning and Development only enforces the permit on a complaint basis, so, generally speaking, the lack of a permit is not often a problem.) Last week’s discussion was, thanks to a series of complaints throughout the county over the past year or so from concerned neighbors, centered around closing the current loophole in the aforementioned policy that exists for private properties that get rented out for short-term “vacations” but are actually used as wedding sites or some other “for profit” type of event.

In the end, the commissioners — simultaneously recognizing the inherent oddity of people crying foul about a policy that actually has been in place for more than half a decade but that they honestly had no idea about, as well as the need to get better control of the “party palace” phenomenon — voted unanimously to have their staff facilitate the formation of a stakeholder group on the topic and work toward a compromise that all those involved can live with. The matter is due back at the commission on October 12.

Comments

Thanks, Ethan for getting the story straight. That's right, the county is proposing nothing new, the requirement for a CUP has existed all along for the COMMERCIAL use for weddings and parties on residential and ag property.

If you live next to, or near, one of these party palaces, you want it shut down and expect the county to enforce its rules. The present case is the result of weekly weddings (cars, trucks, buses, bands, lights, trash) held on an ag parcel that has destroyed the neighbors peace, quiet and safety.

The owner (a SB realtor) battled the county saying it's his right to do so and continues to hold the weddings to the dismay of all his neighbors. After zoning & building violations, the stripping of his Williamson Act subsidy by the board of Sups, and regular sheriff involvement, he soldiers on protected by a legal loophole that prevents the county from enforcing its rule.

The mis-informed hospitality folks came out in force to support him based on his cries that enforcement of the rules will destroy SB tourism. The truth is, as Ethan explained, the law has been on the books, but rarely enforced because the vast majority of private rentals for parties are done so with integrity and consideration of neighbors. The present firestorm, created by one egregious violator, puts the whole issue under a microscope. The hospitality folks are slowly coming to realize that they came out to support the one 'bad apple' that is giving them all a black eye.

Hopefully, the planning commission will step up to its responsibility and shut this guy down. Nobody wants this in their neighborhood.

Ethan- good report, but a fact that really illustrates how this so-called "storm of dissent" emerged is that it was orchestrated by none other than Mike Brown (yes, THAT Mike Brown) in his COLAB role, - the "dissent" is nothing more than a wealthy property owner funding faux public outrage over something that , under Mike Browns reign of power, was never enforced by County staff, to the detriment of neighborhoods. Mike himself was very vocal at the hearing.

What a mess. I attended both hearings, initially thinking the realtor needed support, but quickly learning that he's thrown all the legitimate wedding professionals under the bus.

Yes, we've been working parties, weddings and events at private residences for years without permits or complaints. Apparently this is so because the hosts do so infrequently, shut down at reasonable hours, and address neighbor concerns.

This guy thinks he's above not only the existing law, but lacks common decency and consideration of neighboring property owners. I hope the county tweaks the rules so we can all get back to business.